| Can anyone explain why... 18:55 - Sep 30 with 17034 views | Scuzzer |
The ref overruled the lino on the third goal? Blatant offside as the guy was right in Bart's line of sight. I was livid....but overall the ref was absolutely abysmal.
I think Brizzle were the better team today but they did have a major slice of luck going for them....including having that dreadful idiot with a whistle. |  |
| |  |
| Can anyone explain why... on 19:44 - Sep 30 with 6317 views | ArnieM |
Considering how the little Tozza reffed the whole game, giving Bristol every conceivable advantge he could, he was always going to over rule the linos flag . And the linesman flagged straight away. |  |
| |
| Can anyone explain why... on 08:27 - Oct 1 with 6072 views | Dolly2.0 |
The ball deflected off one of our players, so how was that offside? |  |
| |
| Can anyone explain why... on 08:31 - Oct 1 with 6049 views | Bluebell |
| Can anyone explain why... on 08:27 - Oct 1 by Dolly2.0 |
The ball deflected off one of our players, so how was that offside? |
Agreed. If it had gone straight in it would have been offside.
Even I know that! |  | | |
| Can anyone explain why... on 08:35 - Oct 1 with 6041 views | Bluefish |
| Can anyone explain why... on 08:27 - Oct 1 by Dolly2.0 |
The ball deflected off one of our players, so how was that offside? |
What has a deflection got to do with offside? |  |
| |
| Can anyone explain why... on 08:48 - Oct 1 with 6011 views | itfcjoe |
| Can anyone explain why... on 08:35 - Oct 1 by Bluefish |
What has a deflection got to do with offside? |
The Lino thought it deflected of a BC player so flagged for offside, ball actually deflected if Knudsen so as it was our player meant it wasn’t offside |  |
| |
| Can anyone explain why... on 08:49 - Oct 1 with 5998 views | Dolly2.0 |
| Can anyone explain why... on 08:35 - Oct 1 by Bluefish |
What has a deflection got to do with offside? |
Err, it came off one of our players = not offside. | |
| |
| Can anyone explain why... on 08:49 - Oct 1 with 5997 views | Bluefish |
| Can anyone explain why... on 08:31 - Oct 1 by Bluebell |
Agreed. If it had gone straight in it would have been offside.
Even I know that! |
But that is wrong | |
| |
| Can anyone explain why... on 08:50 - Oct 1 with 5994 views | Bluefish |
| Can anyone explain why... on 08:49 - Oct 1 by Dolly2.0 |
Err, it came off one of our players = not offside. |
Errr so you go to football but don't understand the rules | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Can anyone explain why... on 08:51 - Oct 1 with 5991 views | Bluefish |
| Can anyone explain why... on 08:48 - Oct 1 by itfcjoe |
The Lino thought it deflected of a BC player so flagged for offside, ball actually deflected if Knudsen so as it was our player meant it wasn’t offside |
Thatbis not what they mean though they think it can't be offside because it came off our player regardless of whether it then touched a bcfc player | |
| |
| Can anyone explain why... on 08:52 - Oct 1 with 5986 views | Dolly2.0 |
| Can anyone explain why... on 08:50 - Oct 1 by Bluefish |
Errr so you go to football but don't understand the rules |
Is this some sort of lame attempt at trolling? | |
| |
| Can anyone explain why... on 08:54 - Oct 1 with 5984 views | Bluefish |
| Can anyone explain why... on 08:52 - Oct 1 by Dolly2.0 |
Is this some sort of lame attempt at trolling? |
I hope so for you but appears not.
The bloke is offside as soon as it is kicked forward by Reid. The deflection happens afterwards. If the opposition player is offside and interfering he is still offside from the 1st kick unless he gets back onside | |
| |
| Can anyone explain why... on 08:57 - Oct 1 with 5966 views | Dolly2.0 |
| Can anyone explain why... on 08:54 - Oct 1 by Bluefish |
I hope so for you but appears not.
The bloke is offside as soon as it is kicked forward by Reid. The deflection happens afterwards. If the opposition player is offside and interfering he is still offside from the 1st kick unless he gets back onside |
Oh dear. You're rather embarrassing yourself here.
Here's the bit from Phil's report to help you out:
"The impressive Reid struck a shot from 25 yards out which caught Knudsen on the way through and beat Bialkowski.
The linesman had initially flagged, presumably as he felt the ball had been turned in by a Bristol City player, but after consultation the referee awarded the goal." | |
| |
| Can anyone explain why... on 09:00 - Oct 1 with 5966 views | Bluefish |
| Can anyone explain why... on 08:57 - Oct 1 by Dolly2.0 |
Oh dear. You're rather embarrassing yourself here.
Here's the bit from Phil's report to help you out:
"The impressive Reid struck a shot from 25 yards out which caught Knudsen on the way through and beat Bialkowski.
The linesman had initially flagged, presumably as he felt the ball had been turned in by a Bristol City player, but after consultation the referee awarded the goal." |
You still don't understand the point clearly or the rules. He wasn't offside because he was deemed not interfering because he didn't touch it. It is not that he couldn't be offside because of a deflection | |
| |
| Can anyone explain why... on 09:15 - Oct 1 with 5914 views | Dolly2.0 |
| Can anyone explain why... on 09:00 - Oct 1 by Bluefish |
You still don't understand the point clearly or the rules. He wasn't offside because he was deemed not interfering because he didn't touch it. It is not that he couldn't be offside because of a deflection |
I understand the rules quite clearly thanks. You seem to be talking in riddles.
The ball deflected off a defending player (Knudsen) not a BC player, which is presumably why the lino flagged.
Because it was a Town player the goal stands.
I can't be any clearer. | |
| |
| Can anyone explain why... on 09:17 - Oct 1 with 5907 views | christiand |
| Can anyone explain why... on 09:00 - Oct 1 by Bluefish |
You still don't understand the point clearly or the rules. He wasn't offside because he was deemed not interfering because he didn't touch it. It is not that he couldn't be offside because of a deflection |
The deflection, by Knudsen, is the equivalent of a back pass. When a defender plays it back to an opponent standing in an offside position - they aren't offside. Even though the ref by all accounts had a bad game, looks like he got this decision correct whether we like it or not. |  |
| |
| Can anyone explain why... on 09:22 - Oct 1 with 5893 views | Bluefish |
| Can anyone explain why... on 09:17 - Oct 1 by christiand |
The deflection, by Knudsen, is the equivalent of a back pass. When a defender plays it back to an opponent standing in an offside position - they aren't offside. Even though the ref by all accounts had a bad game, looks like he got this decision correct whether we like it or not. |
If the forward had touched it after the deflection he would she offside | |
| |
| Can anyone explain why... on 09:22 - Oct 1 with 5894 views | sparks |
| Can anyone explain why... on 09:17 - Oct 1 by christiand |
The deflection, by Knudsen, is the equivalent of a back pass. When a defender plays it back to an opponent standing in an offside position - they aren't offside. Even though the ref by all accounts had a bad game, looks like he got this decision correct whether we like it or not. |
That analogy doesnt work- unless you include a passintercepted by the defender from an opponent before the defender passes it back. Which would be offside...
The key is the opponents forward pass. |  |
| The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to the presence of those who think they've found it.
(Sir Terry Pratchett) | | Poll: | Is Fred drunk this morning? |
| |
| Can anyone explain why... on 09:34 - Oct 1 with 5871 views | christiand |
| Can anyone explain why... on 09:22 - Oct 1 by Bluefish |
If the forward had touched it after the deflection he would she offside |
but he didn't from what I've seen. So the goal was a good one. | |
| |
| Can anyone explain why... on 09:38 - Oct 1 with 5863 views | christiand |
| Can anyone explain why... on 09:22 - Oct 1 by sparks |
That analogy doesnt work- unless you include a passintercepted by the defender from an opponent before the defender passes it back. Which would be offside...
The key is the opponents forward pass. |
The striker can choose to stand in an offside position, if the defender plays it back to the goalkeeper (not seeing the striker), but the striker intercepts the pass he isn't offside. | |
| |
| Can anyone explain why... on 09:44 - Oct 1 with 5837 views | GlasgowBlue |
| Can anyone explain why... on 09:15 - Oct 1 by Dolly2.0 |
I understand the rules quite clearly thanks. You seem to be talking in riddles.
The ball deflected off a defending player (Knudsen) not a BC player, which is presumably why the lino flagged.
Because it was a Town player the goal stands.
I can't be any clearer. |
Truce is correct. The BC player is offside as soon as the ball is played (phase 1). The fact that it then got a deflection of a Town player (phase 2) doesn’t change the original decision. |  |
| |
| Can anyone explain why... on 09:51 - Oct 1 with 5809 views | Dolly2.0 |
| Can anyone explain why... on 09:44 - Oct 1 by GlasgowBlue |
Truce is correct. The BC player is offside as soon as the ball is played (phase 1). The fact that it then got a deflection of a Town player (phase 2) doesn’t change the original decision. |
The lino, according to Phil, presumably thought the ball deflected off a BC player (which would've been offside). It didn't, it came off Knudsen - thus it's onside.
Interesting that there's several in this thread saying the same as me... but it's me that you go for. | |
| |
| Can anyone explain why... on 09:57 - Oct 1 with 5791 views | Simonds92 |
| Can anyone explain why... on 09:51 - Oct 1 by Dolly2.0 |
The lino, according to Phil, presumably thought the ball deflected off a BC player (which would've been offside). It didn't, it came off Knudsen - thus it's onside.
Interesting that there's several in this thread saying the same as me... but it's me that you go for. |
Whether it hit our player or theirs surely they are interfering with play by obstructing the goalkeepers view?! | | | |
| Can anyone explain why... on 09:57 - Oct 1 with 5788 views | GlasgowBlue |
| Can anyone explain why... on 09:51 - Oct 1 by Dolly2.0 |
The lino, according to Phil, presumably thought the ball deflected off a BC player (which would've been offside). It didn't, it came off Knudsen - thus it's onside.
Interesting that there's several in this thread saying the same as me... but it's me that you go for. |
Don’t flatter yourself. I have addressed what you said as you are the only person who has disagreed with Truce explanation of the law. As a former youth coach, I am clarifying the laws of the game for you. I should charge top dollar for this advice.
Truce is correct.
On a side note, you are losing it in here lately. Take a deep breath and stop thinking the world is against you. [Post edited 1 Oct 2017 9:58]
| |
| |
| Can anyone explain why... on 09:58 - Oct 1 with 5783 views | Dolly2.0 |
| Can anyone explain why... on 09:57 - Oct 1 by Simonds92 |
Whether it hit our player or theirs surely they are interfering with play by obstructing the goalkeepers view?! |
Well that's a different argument. I don't know if they were obstructing the keeper's view, I'd have to see it agin. | |
| |
| Can anyone explain why... on 10:02 - Oct 1 with 5762 views | Dolly2.0 |
| Can anyone explain why... on 09:57 - Oct 1 by GlasgowBlue |
Don’t flatter yourself. I have addressed what you said as you are the only person who has disagreed with Truce explanation of the law. As a former youth coach, I am clarifying the laws of the game for you. I should charge top dollar for this advice.
Truce is correct.
On a side note, you are losing it in here lately. Take a deep breath and stop thinking the world is against you. [Post edited 1 Oct 2017 9:58]
|
Bluebell, Christian and Joe have ALL disagreed with Truce.
I'm bored of your patronising and rudeness. Onto ignore you go. Cheerio. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
